AiGbusted is dedicated to exposing creationist hoaxes, especially the leading organization, Answers in Genesis.

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Mary at Medjugorje by Hector Avalos

Below is a copy of an article that is interesting and difficult to obtain on the web.

Mary at Medjugorje:A Critical Inquiry

Hector Avalos

Medjugorje, once a sleepy little town in the province of Bosnia-Herzegovina (old Yugoslavia), became in the 1980s one of theworld's most visited destinations, attracting perhaps as many asfifteen million visitors. The attraction had nothing to do withamusement parks or hotel casinos, but with claims that Mary, themother of Jesus in Christian tradition, was making specialappearances in Medjugorje. Cover stories have been published aboutthe phenomenon in Life (July 1991), Time (December 30, 1991), andother respected publications, which are not always as critical oraccurate as they should be.

For the past few years I have been studying reports and videotapesof supposed Marian apparition experiences, and I have spoken tosome of the people who claimed to have witnessed them or whobelieve in them. The most frequent defense of Marian apparitionsamong believers whom I have encountered usually revolves around onecentral question: How can a group of seemingly honest andapparently normal people report seeing Mary if she is not appearingthere? Other defenders point out that a "scientific" team hassupported the authenticity of the apparitions at Medjugorje.Ironically, it is the dramatic events themselves at Medjugorje thatsupport a nonsupernatural explanation.

The Medjugorje reports are different from those of earliersightings of Mary in a number of respects. First, written accountshave been produced while the series of apparitions were stilloccurring. Second, most of the principal witnesses are still aliveand have made themselves available for extensive interviews. Moreimportant, modern video and audio equipment has recorded thevisionaries as they are supposedly experiencing their visions.Finally, the visionaries have submitted to various medical andscientific tests such as encephalograms during their experiences.

The first reported apparitions at Medjugorje began on June 24,1981, when six Croatian-speaking children claimed that the VirginMary had appeared to them on a hill. They were met with initialskepticism and harassment from some authorities. Surprisingly, oneof the most vocal skeptics was Pavao Zanic, their own bishop, who,according to one transcript of an interview, declared, "In myopinion Medjugorje is the greatest deceit and swindle in thehistory of the Church." In particular, Zanic complained that theapparition stories were part of a conspiracy instigated by a groupof popular Franciscans who have protested efforts to replace themwith secular clergy in the parish of Medjugorje.

Despite the political conflicts caused by the apparitions withinthe local diocese, and despite the fact that the Catholic churchhas not officially affirmed the authenticity of the visions, thenumber of pilgrims who have gone to Medjugorje since 1981 has beenplaced by some at over fifteen million. This number of Mariandevotees at Medjugorje far surpasses the believers of the Jesusapparition stories of early Christianity. Only the recent civilwar in Yugoslavia has discouraged massive visits.

The `Scientific' Investigation of Henri Joyeux

According to his own account, Henri Joyeux, a surgeon and aprofessor of oncology in the Faculty of Medicine at Montpellier,France, carried out an extensive battery of tests in four separatemissions between March and December of 1984. Joyeux and Father RenLaurentin, an ardent Marian apologist and historian, thensynthesized their findings in the definitive work Scientific andMedical Studies on the Apparitions at Medjugorje.

Joyeux concluded that the visionaries had no mental illness of anysort. The apparitions are not sleep or dream or hallucination inthe medical or pathological sense of the word. This isscientifically excluded by the electro-encephalogram and byclinical observation. He also excludes "any element of deceit."Since Joyeux could not find any condition that he would label"pathological," he concludes, "We are dealing with a perceptionwhich is essentially objective both in its causality and in itsscope." As to the cause of the youngsters' experience, he says,"The most obvious answer is that given by the visionaries who claimto meet the Virgin Mary, Mother of God." In sum, Laurentin andJoyeux conclude that there is no scientific or natural explanationavailable to account for the reports of the visionaries. Moreimportant, they conclude that the absence of any condition labeledas "pathological" is evidence that the reported experience of thevisionaries is authentically supernatural. Can `Normal' PersonsReport Seeing and Hearing Non-Occurring Events?

Contrary to the conclusions of Laurentin and Joyeux, abundant andempirically verifiable evidence and experiments demonstrate thatpersons with no known pathological conditions can report hearingand seeing events that are not occurring. Psychologicalexperiments show that such reports of non- occurring events arepart of well-known and relatively natural psycho-social processesexperienced to some degree by most human beings.

One of the most noted of such experiments was published by T. X.Barber and D. S. Calverley in 1964. Seventy-eight unselected"normal" female secretarial students had volunteered for what wasdescribed to the subjects only as a "psychological experiment."Barber and Calverley divided these seventy-eight subjects intothree groups of twenty-six. One group was subjected to suggestionsto see and hear non-occurring events under hypnosis. A secondgroup was given "task-motivating instructions" without the use ofhypnosis. The third group served as a control that received thesame instructions without hypnosis or task-motivating requests.

The second group's "task-motivating instructions" consisted ofasking subjects to see and hear events that were implied to be realbut were actually nonexistent. The subject was told, "I want youto close your eyes and to hear a phonograph record with words andmusic playing White Christmas. Keep listening to the phonographrecord playing White Christmas until I tell you to stop." Theastounding result was that 38 percent of the "normal" subjects inthe second group stated that they clearly heard White Christmas,even though nothing was played. Sixty-five percent of the subjectsin the control group reported the same result. An average of 5.1percent of these unselected people in each experimental group statethat they not only heard the record, but they also believed thatthe record was actually playing.

Immediately after this portion of the experiment, the subject wasinstructed as follows, in a firm and earnest tone of voice: "Iwant you to look at your lap and to see a cat sitting there. Keeplooking at the cat until I tell you to stop." An average of 33.3percent stated they saw the cat clearly even though they believedit was not there. However, an average of 2.5 percent of thesubjects in each group (3.8 percent in the second group) reportedthey not only saw the cat clearly but also believed it was actuallypresent.

Similar results were reported in experiments performed by K. S.Bowers and by N. P. Spanos and T. X. Barber. Even if many subjectsreported non- occurring events only to please others (Bowers),these experiments clearly showed that otherwise "normal" peopleunder relatively "normal" conditions can and do report hearing andseeing events that, by recognized objective measures, arenonexistent.

The Barber and Calverley experiments also showed that the subjectsused the strongest objective terminology available to describenon-occurring events. For example, the subjects in the experimentsused the terms see and hear to describe their experience.

Why do otherwise normal people come to believe that they arewitnessing non-occurring entities and events? The Barber andCalverley experiment, as well as a host of recent research,indicates that human acts of perception always involveinterpretations and inferences that may be held in common by largegroups of people. Raw visual and auditory data are combined withinferences about what was thought to be seen and heard. We oftenselect out of the large raw input of visual and auditory data thosethat we regard as important and that confirm expectations,especially if they are desirable.

Many recent experiments show that the human mind is biologicallywired to interpolate many expected images or portions thereof, evenif such images are not objectively present. People often formmental images of all types of objects, real and unreal. We've allheard how difficult it is not to form an image of a pink elephantwhen someone tells us not to. One can also form mental images thatare believed to be situated in real time and space (e.g., imagine apink elephant in the middle of a parking lot).

Believers may be following a rationale with premises that canyield, at least in their minds, very solid conclusions. Once abeliever is convinced that an inference is valid, then theconclusion may be considered sufficiently certain to contradict orsuppress raw visual data. Any further disconfirmation of theirinterpretation may be either ignored or disregarded in favor of theinference. This type of avoidance of disconfirming data amongMarian devotees is clearly manifested in the oft-repeated dictum:"To those who believe, no proof is necessary; to those who doubt,no proof is sufficient."

The implications of these experiments for the reports of Medjugorjeare quite clear. If, as in the Barber and Calverley experiments,an average of at least 33 percent of people with no obviouspathology can report clearly seeing or hearing events that are notoccurring, then it would not be extraordinary to find 333 "normal"people in a parish of at least one thousand believers who couldreport seeing or hearing non-occurring events, especially when, asis the case with supposed Marian apparitions, the events inquestion are believed to be not only possible but desirable aswell.

If, as in the Barber and Calverley experiment, at least 2.5 percentbelieve what they are seeing or hearing is actually present, thenit would not be extraordinary to find at least twenty-five peoplein a parish of one thousand members who actually believe what theyare seeing and hearing is present in real time and space. In fact,there are many more reported visionaries in the parish who did notreceive the attention of the six principal ones.

If the results obtained by Barber and Calverley occurred after onlyone suggestion to hear and see non-occurring events, then whatwould we reasonably expect from persons, and especiallyimpressionable youngsters, who are repeatedly requested to seenon-occurring events? Does anything akin to the task-motivatingsuggestions exist in the subculture of the visionaries?

Imagine living in a subculture that constantly and repeatedlysuggests to its members the desirability of experiencing a Marianapparition. Imagine living in a subculture where young people whohave claimed to have seen Marian apparitions at Lourdes, Fatima,and other places also are beloved role models. Suggestionspresented to believers in sermons, prayers, and written materialsmay be just as effective as the simple requests made by Barber andCalverley. Although conspiracy or formalized coaching is notrequired to produce people who will report non-occurring events, itshould be noted that Bishop Zanic declared that the visionarieswere indeed coached and manipulated by the Franciscans.

Not only can the subculture of the visionaries encourage theapparitions with words, it also provides detailed and coherentimagery of how the Virgin Mary ought to look and speak. Accordingto P. and I. Rodgers, a picture of Mary supported by a cloud risingabove Medjugorje has been present in the church of the visionariessince about 1971. Not surprisingly, the youngsters' description ofthe Virgin is quite consistent with the picture to which they wereexposed for years. Is Group Simultaneity Always Evidence of anObjective Experience?

Aside from the supposed lack of pathology in the visionaries,Laurentin and Joyeux cite the simultaneity of their key movementsduring the supposed apparitions as evidence for the objectivity oftheir experiences. For example, they point to the convergence oftheir gaze as confirmed by video recording made face-on to thevisionaries during the ecstasy and the simultaneous raising oftheir eyes and heads as the apparition disappears upwards.

I have studied Joyeux's report and have looked at the videotape oftwo separate events that show such alleged simultaneous behavior.My examination reveals nothing so extraordinary as to demand asupernatural explanation.

Joyeux and other writers often make statements that may mislead thereader into thinking that the whole group exhibits simultaneousbehavior that, at most, occurs in only part of the group. Forexample, they report administering an electro-oculogram to Ivan andMarija on December 28, 1984. The movement of the eyeballs of bothyoungsters reportedly showed simultaneity to the second in thecessation of movement at the beginning of the ecstasy and again,simultaneity to the second in the return of movement at the end ofthe ecstasy. But in a Paris Match interview, Joyeux generalizesthis result to the visionaries as a whole ("des voyants"). In histranslation of this interview Father M. O'Carroll makes thegeneralization even more emphatic by saying that "all thevisionaries" had such simultaneity.

Likewise, sometimes the ecstasy that is taken to be evidence of areal apparition experience is not as uniform as might first appear.For example, regarding the youngsters' supposed disconnection fromthe world during their ecstasy, Joyeux says that "disconnection isnot total; rather it is partial and variable."

More important, the supposed vision experiences have a regularschedule and duration that may result, with or without sinistercollusion, in simultaneous behavior. Laurentin and Joyeuxthemselves note the regularity of the behavior, for they divide theexperiences into three phases: contemplation or conversation;prayer with the apparition; and contemplation or conversation.

Insofar as duration is concerned, Laurentin and Joyeux themselvesnote that "no apparition has lasted for more than one or twominutes since the end of 1983." This is important because theymade their measurements of simultaneity in 1984, when the durationof each event was quite short and predictable. In fact, theyreport recording the precise duration of only five ecstasies, witheach one lasting sixty-five to eighty-five seconds.

The schedule for the start of the ecstasy is certainly familiar toLaurentin and Joyeux, who themselves say: "Since the end of 1983,ecstasy begins before they have finished the first Our Father."They also note, following an earlier study of Dr. Lucia Capello,that: Their voices become audible at the same time, on the thirdword of the Our Father, the apparition having recited the firsttwo. This phenomenon militates against the theory of a prioragreement and cannot be put down to natural causes. Even without asinister conspiracy, the regular schedule noted by Laurentin andJoyeux clearly is sufficient to produce the type of simultaneitythey find so unnatural. Indeed, beginning to pray audibly with thethird word of the Our Father is as good a cue as beginning to prayaudibly with the first word. It is, of course, poor science torepresent as a verifiable fact the belief that the apparitionrecites the first two words.

Likewise, the convergence of the gaze is usually toward the frontof the room when the visions take place within a church. EvenLaurentin and Joyeux observe: "The visionaries' gaze converges onthe same well-located spot." Again, gazing at a well-knownlocation is something that may be learned and conditionednaturally, thus producing the simultaneity reported.

In one videotape recording the experience of visionaries Jacob andMarija, I observed that after assembling at the front of the roomto begin the supposed encounter with Mary, Jacob began to gazeupward as he crossed himself. About one second later Marija didthe same. Aside from the fact that the supposed apparition takesplace at the same time in the schedule, both children hadperipheral vision and could observe each other gaze upward.

The kneeling, which even Joyeux admits is not perfectlysynchronized, occurs at the end of the recitation of the OurFather, which in turn is usually recited after the initialcrossing. Another videotape shows that the near simultaneouskneeling by five of the visionaries also occurs at the end of theinitial Our Father. A visual cue to kneel is not even necessaryhere because the end of the audible prayer could be a sufficientcue. Such simultaneity in kneeling can even be achieved withoutvisual cues in multiple locations if the worshippers are alllistening to the recitation of the Our Father on a radio.

Although near-simultaneous behavior is considered an indication ofan "objective" experience for Joyeux, non-simultaneous behaviordoes not appear to be evidence for a "subjective" experience.Laurentin and Joyeux report, "The visionaries had independentconversations and even had different conversations simultaneouslyat times." They use an unverifiable phenomenon to explain thevariable conversations--namely the possible use of differentchannels of supernatural communication by the Virgin. However,each informant may be constructing his or her own imaginarydialogue. Furthermore, the type of coherence that they cite in theapparition reports can also derive from the common imagery andforms of speech that are stereotypical in the Marian subculture.

Joyeux wasted a unique opportunity to design experiments that wouldhave provided more of a challenge to skeptics on the issue ofsimultaneity. Indeed, his experimental design was quite careless.For example, since even Joyeux repeatedly claims that normal visionor hearing is not necessary to perceive the apparitions, each ofthe visionaries could have been blindfolded before they assembledat the front of the room. Earphones that render any external soundinaudible could have been placed upon them. Yet, there were noreported attempts to cover their ears or eyes throughout an event.

Partitions could have been placed between the visionaries toexclude the possibility of cues from air disturbances produced bybody movements (e.g., kneeling). A more rigorous experimentermight have spun all the visionaries around and pointed them indifferent directions within the partitions. If those visionariestruly had a special ability that was not based on normal hearing orseeing, then we would expect them to have all heard the apparitioncalling them from the same spot at the same time. We would expectthat each of the children initially pointed in different directionswould turn simultaneously toward the same direction even ifblindfolded. If a recorded version of the Our Father were recitedto each visionary at different times through the earphones, wewould still expect them to ignore the voice on the earphones andkneel in synchrony with the supposed actions of the apparition.

Insofar as experimental design is concerned, the exaggerated claimsof Joyeux are most apparent in the "screening test" he discusses.What Joyeux describes as a "screening test" and a "screen" actuallyrefers to the brief placement of a postcard-size object in front ofMarija and Ivanka. It does not block out peripheral vision. Notehow Joyeux interprets the brief visual screening test: a screenwhich is held up does not block out the perception of theapparition. Again Joyeux assumes a priori the existence of thesupernatural object that the youngsters claim to perceive. WhatJoyeux actually observed is that the gaze of two visionariesremained fixed when a postcard-size card was placed in front ofthem. Such a fixed gaze does not constitute proof for theexistence of an object at the point in space where the visionariesare looking because one can observe that during prayer manyworshippers in Christian and non-Christian religions gaze upward atwhat they believe to be heaven even when temple walls or otherscreening objects are interposed.

However, even if rigorous visual and auditory blocking procedureswere used, they could not eliminate the possibility of a learnedsimultaneity after 1983 when the whole schedule became very regularand lasted one to two minutes. In sum, the simultaneity cited byLaurentin and Joyeux, even if genuine, is not extraordinary, and itdoes not constitute evidence for the objectivity of the experienceat all, especially in light of poor experimental design.

The Incoherence of Laurentin and Joyeux's View of `Objectivity'

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the conclusions of Laurentinand Joyeux is that they use the word objective in a wildlyinconsistent manner, resulting in special pleading and in logicallyabsurd conclusions. For example, in a discussion of whether thephenomena exhibited by the visionaries are supernatural, theystate, "As research has not reached any objective proofs, it wouldbe difficult to discuss the matter in the absence of definitecriteria." But they still purport to have proof in favor of theobjective experience of the visionaries. Note their reasoning: Themere fact that others present do not see the apparition which isvisible only to the visionaries in no way proves that it is aperception without an object. It simply proves that the manner ofperceiving is not the same as that involved in the perception ofother ordinary material objects. . . . Bats, for example, arecapable of discerning certain radiations that escape us. Other,more radically different, means of perception may well exist. Aclaim for an ability does not prove that one possesses the ability,and Joyeux's example of animals who possess abilities that humansdo not will not help his case. And in the case of bats, theexistence of their ability to hear high frequency sounds is notbased on a claim made by the bats. We can verify empirically(e.g., by means of instruments) and with mathematical precision theexistence of both the object (high frequency sounds) and thespecial and quantifiable ability of bats to perceive that object.The criteria and methodology are sufficiently objective to elicitthe agreement of both atheists and Christians.

Such is not the case with the visionaries. Laurentin and Joyeuxthemselves admit that no experiments, videotapes, or otherinstruments have been able to detect the object that thevisionaries claim to perceive with an equally unverifiable andnon-quantifiable ability. They are apparently aware of thisdifficulty in their logic, and so they attempt to plead the case ofthe visionaries by using even more speculative hypotheses andconclusions. Our tests tend to lead us to the hypothesis of aperson-to-person communication which takes place at a spirituallevel, analogous to the angelic act of knowing. Such statementsclearly show that theology, not rigorous science, motivates theirplea for the visionaries.

Note also the logical problems produced when they discuss thedefinition of a "hallucination." The Concise Oxford Dictionarydefines hallucination as "apparent perception of external objectnot actually present," which might fit the case of Medjugorje if apriori one held that an object from another world does not exist orif one understands "not actually present" in a purely empiricalway. Medically speaking "hallucination" indicates a pathologicalstate and it would appear to us that use of the word should berestricted to psychiatric illness. But if one does not deny apriori the existence of the object that the "psychiatric"hallucinator claims to see, then it follows that the claims of thelatter have no less validity than those of the Medjugorjevisionaries. Since the objects seen by the psychiatrichallucinator and the Medjugorje visionaries are equally invisibleto other people and to cameras, then it is only special pleading,not verifiable criteria, that leads Laurentin and Joyeux to affirmthe credibility of the Medjugorje visionaries while denyingcredibility to the "psychiatric" hallucinator. Thus, Laurentin andJoyeux provide no verifiable reason to ascribe accuracy to theperception of the six who claim to see Mary, and yet deny theaccuracy of the perception of the thousands who claim to be equallycertain that they do not see Mary.

`Solar Miracles' as Evidence for Marian Apparitions

Solar miracles are cited often by theologians and laypersons asproof of the authenticity of the visionaries' experiences.Ironically, the reports of such solar miracles are the mostdefinitive proof that people can and do report the occurrence ofnon-occurring events at Medjugorje.

One dramatic case may be found in a 1988 videotape recorded by"20/20," the ABC news program. Stone Phillips was sent toaccompany a group of pilgrims to Medjugorje. At one point in thereport a crowd of pilgrims reported seeing the sun "coming closer"and "dancing" at the same time that ABC cameras were trained on thesun. Of course, any such movement of the sun would be an event ofastronomical proportions that should have been witnessed by a largepart of the planet, astronomical observatories, and hundreds ofdifferent types of instruments. Yet, the videotape showed nomovement in the sun, and Stone Phillips likewise confirmed that hesaw no movement in the sun. As in the case of the subjects in theBarber and Calverley experiment, the report by a group that anon-occurring event is occurring indicates that a psycho-socialprocess is the best explanation.

The report of a "dancing sun" also demonstrates other importantpoints about group delusions. The reports of non-occurring eventsneed not be due to lying, which involves making statements that thespeaker believes to be false. For example, a pilgrim may say, "Isee the sun moving," to express the following interpretation of rawperceptions: "Marian apparitions should be accompanied by a movingsun, and therefore that is what must be happening." Once thebeliever assumes that this rationale is true, then he or she allowsthe use of phrases such as "see" (e.g., "I see the sun moving")even though empirical evidence says otherwise.

Crying Icons, Metallic Transformations, and Healings

Crying icons are often reported at sites of Marian apparitions. Iexamined one such case in Arizona in 1982, when a group of Mexicanimmigrant neighbors reported that a statue of the Virgin outsidetheir apartment "cried" around dawn. I found that the liquid underthe eyes of this "crying icon" was indistinguishable from dew thatalso was present on other objects and on many parts of the icon.One may characterize as "selective seeing" any claim that ignoresthe moisture on most parts of the icon and yet attributes to cryingthe moisture below the eyes. Psycho-social processes can explainall of the reports of icon "miracles" at Medjugorje with which I amfamiliar.

Reports of metal transformations are also common. There is indeeda long history that associates the Virgin with metal workers. Thefact that metal color can change is a known phenomenon, most oftendue to oxidation. However, the instantaneous metallic changesreported by Marian devotees have simply never been verified byscience.

Reports of healings are also poorly investigated. Most of thetestimonies come from people who, by their own words, already havehad medical treatment, and so it is virtually impossible todistinguish the effects of medical treatment from those of supposedmiracles. Another problem is that most of the reports represent asfacts diagnoses and symptoms that the compilers have not verified.Equally important, most readers of reports of supposed miracles arenot apprised of negative follow-up reports. For example, a book byR. Laurentin and L. Rupcic relates the case of Venka Bilic- Brajcic(of Split) as follows: In January, 1980, the patient had her leftbreast removed, and afterward, she received postoperative radiationtreatment. Nine months after the operation there were numerousmetastases. These had reached the right breast on which radiationtreatment began in April, 1981. . . . Venka herself reported . . ."My sister said that Our Lady of Medjugorje could help me, andsuggested that I pray to her. . . . Two or three days after thisprayer the appearance of the sores started to change. . . ." Venkafeels well, and the medical certificate confirms that there is nosign of further metastases into the bone or other organs. Venkareturned to Medjugorje to thank Our Lady. She submitted medicaldocuments on September 8, 1982. But Father O'Carroll's book reportsthat, in response to Laurentin and Rupcic's claims, Zanic notedthat this patient died in June 1984, and that her doctor protestedthe claim that she was cured at the time that she had stated.

Conclusion

A supernatural explanation for reports of Marian apparitions isunnecessary, unverifiable, and ultimately self-defeating forbelievers. It is unnecessary because we have verifiable andrepeatable experiments that show that otherwise "normal" people canand do report seeing and hearing non- occurring events. It isunwarranted because the criteria, methods, and assumptions areunverifiable. It is ultimately self-defeating because believersthemselves would have no way to refute, by verifiable means, theclaims of "apparitions" made by non-Christian religions.

We need not firmly diagnose the experience of the visionaries as apsychiatric hallucination or a delusion in the sense of theauthoritative definitions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manualof Mental Disorders (DSM- III) (American Psychiatric Association[APA] 1980). Though we do not a priori exclude psychiatricfactors, our point has been that the normal social processes andinternal logic of their Marian subculture are sufficient to explaintheir behavior. To refute Joyeux,, we also need not enter into therecent debates about whether the criteria of the APA are subjectiveor culturally biased against religious phenomena.

The refutation of Joyeux ultimately rests on the fact that he doesnot fulfil the requirements of the two adjectives in the title ofhis own book: Scientific and Medical Studies on the Apparitions atMedjugorje. By his own words science has not reached any"objective proofs," and all the evidence he offers is unverifiabletheology (e.g., "the angelic act of knowing"). Since the mainprinciple of scientific inquiry is verifiability, his constant useof unverifiable theological hypotheses to support the visionariesnullifies any claim to scientific or medical validity for hisstudies and conclusions. It is no miracle that a supernaturalexplanation for the Medjugorje apparition reports has been rejectedby both a Catholic bishop and secular humanists.